If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by noparlpf

{{scrubbed}}

I used to play chess on deployments a lot, then I went to Singapore and bought this awesome set w/marble pieces but I haven't even used it! In regards to the suggested rule, I just mean that there is already a 400 page book of rules to remember so if this could be made a little simpler it would be wonderful. As it is I think it's a really creative and exciting change - I've always wanted to have PC's find ways to explain how they learned that new spell or that PrC so this kinda fits that idea.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by INDYSTAR188

I used to play chess on deployments a lot, then I went to Singapore and bought this awesome set w/marble pieces but I haven't even used it! In regards to the suggested rule, I just mean that there is already a 400 page book of rules to remember so if this could be made a little simpler it would be wonderful. As it is I think it's a really creative and exciting change - I've always wanted to have PC's find ways to explain how they learned that new spell or that PrC so this kinda fits that idea.

True, though at least a hundred pages of that is spell descriptions already, so one more page on spell acquisition won't make a huge difference. Spell prereqs can be listed with the individual spell descriptions and in the spell listings.

Jude P.

Playing Pokémon X and αS
3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by noparlpf

{{scrubbed}}

Note that chess has comparatively few rules, and largely works on account of the emergent complexity those rules produce given the spatial configuration of the pieces. It's a highly elegant game in that regard. Your proposed rule, meanwhile, introduces a complicated to fix a minor problem that could be fixed by altering the rules causing it to emerge in the first place, which is about as inelegant as it gets short of outright allowing the problem.

{{scrubbed}}You could, at any point make a process more obtuse through obfuscation without meaningfully changing the rules. You can model the exact same thing in a much more inefficient manner. Both of these increase the requirement to understand the rules, and absolutely nothing is gained. If anything, something is lost, as the rules now use up more focus that could have gone to the characters, or the setting, or interactions between the two. Sure, building the rules this way does remove some of the potential for people to proclaim their intellectual superiority for being able to understand them in the first place, but that isn't of any worth in the first place.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

The main problem with requiring skill checks, of course, is that skill checks are so easy to boost in 3e, and a secondary problem is that if you're basing the DC on spell level it goes up by a different rate than Spellcraft ranks based on whether it's using ranks, 2*ranks, or whatever (i.e. the Truenamer problem).

The idea is in 5E skills boosts wouldn't be so common as to not worry about it. Skill Focus feat is fine, and this would encourage taking it. My Pathfinder Sorcerer took Skill Focus Spellcraft because Pathfinder increased its value by using it to identify magic items even with Detect Magic and for crafting items, for which I want to craft metamagic rods.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by navar100

The idea is in 5E skills boosts wouldn't be so common as to not worry about it. Skill Focus feat is fine, and this would encourage taking it. My Pathfinder Sorcerer took Skill Focus Spellcraft because Pathfinder increased its value by using it to identify magic items even with Detect Magic and for crafting items, for which I want to craft metamagic rods.

Since you mentioned spending XP, casting speed, and getting a rank in Spellcraft, I thought you were still comparing 2e and 3e casting drawbacks and talking about making 3e work more like 2e. If you were talking about porting 3e spell acquisition to 5e, then skill check inflation shouldn't be nearly as bad, though I'm skeptical that they'll really manage to rein in bonus inflation based on the difference between their initial bounded complexity pitch and what we've seen in the playtest.

Better to DM in Baator than play in CelestiaYou can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.

Spoiler: Sig of Holding

Show

Originally Posted by abadguy

Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!

Originally Posted by Chambers

I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Complexity in rules does not equal depth, some of the deepest games, ie chess, have very very simple rules. In fact, complexity often(but not always), makes a game less deep, as it often gets down to who's better at math or brought a table with them wins.

I really don't like requiring a check to learn a new spell. I believe randomness needs to be used carefully in an RPG. Random chance increases drama and tension, it makes the results of an action unpredictable. This is great when trying to attack a monster, or convince a guard you're a baron or something, but it is pretty universally bad for any sort of character advancement.

The fact is, a spellcaster, especially an arcane spellcaster, measures their ability through their spells. With a lot of good spells, they will be powerful, with only a few poor spells, they will be weak. The game designers(at least in theory), will balance the class based on having access to a certain number of spells, and DM can further control this by controlling what spells the character will have access to. You should never let a die determine if a character does or does not get more powerful. If the die rolls in the players favor too many times, the player will be overpowered or have abilities the DM doesn't want them to have. If it rolls against the too many times the player will be weak and may not have abilities the DM was counting on.

If a wizard wants to learn a new spell from a scroll, the DM should decide if it's possible or not by making the scroll available or unavailable. That should be the only determining factor on whether or not a wizard can or can not learn a new spell.

Think of it like this, if a fighter wants a flaming longsword, do you roll to see if they can wield it after they spend money on it. No young don't. You let them buy it and use it, or if you don't want them to have it, you don't make it available for purchase.

"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by TheOOB

Think of it like this, if a fighter wants a flaming longsword, do you roll to see if they can wield it after they spend money on it. No young don't. You let them buy it and use it, or if you don't want them to have it, you don't make it available for purchase.

The difference is though, you can take the sword away if it's causing trouble without inconveniencing the character for too terribly long. The spell by contrast cannot be so easily removed.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

The difference is though, you can take the sword away if it's causing trouble without inconveniencing the character for too terribly long. The spell by contrast cannot be so easily removed.

Taking equipment away permanently is a tactic of bad DM's. Whether found or purchased(or crafted), a player rightfully feels they earned that item, and it's now just as much a part of their character as their feats and spells. Taking away an item from a player for a long period of time just makes a bitter and annoyed player.

In both cases, if it's a problem, the best solution is to just talk to the player, explain the problem, and offer them something else for it.

"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Which of course forces the catch-22 where all new DMs are retroactively punished for being new DMs. And DMs that aren't good at optimization.

That point of view isn't respectable in the least. There are dozens of potential stories revolving around taking away gear from players. But the "gentleman's agreement" pretty much tell people that all of them are crap because bad DMs don't know better, and players should throw a tantrum and whine on forums until the DM either capitulates or throws the player out.

The "Gentleman's agreement" is one of the worst things to happen to roleplaying games, it binds the DM's hands in the sense of "fair play" without doing the same for the players, making the game require an excellent DM to even adjucate the game, and essentially making the effort in becoming a great DM not worth it. It's pretty much the archetypal example of the arguments that raised the Oberoni Fallacy. "It's not broken, the Gentleman's Agreement/Rule 0 fixes it."

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Zeful

The "Gentleman's agreement" is one of the worst things to happen to roleplaying games, it binds the DM's hands in the sense of "fair play" without doing the same for the players, making the game require an excellent DM to even adjucate the game, and essentially making the effort in becoming a great DM not worth it. It's pretty much the archetypal example of the arguments that raised the Oberoni Fallacy. "It's not broken, the Gentleman's Agreement/Rule 0 fixes it."

I'm entirely failing to understand the line of reasoning here. To begin with, all the definitions of gentleman's agreement in the context of RPGs include the players agreeing not to break the game. That is, both sides (DM and players) agree to be gentlemen!

In a horribly ironic twist, the specific tactic and situation you appear to be endorsing here (i.e., the system expects a new DM to allow an item or spell or feat, later discover it to be broken, and then remove it, thus ensuring that the game is not imbalanced) is in fact Oberoni in nature. And would be solved equally well by an actual gentleman's agreement.

A well-designed system, ideally, needs no after-the-fact fixing; DM fiat and mutual agreements not to break the game are both designed to cope specifically with flaws in the design that show up later, and should not be considered during the actual design phase (or when discussing problems that need fixing).

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by tuggyne

I'm entirely failing to understand the line of reasoning here. To begin with, all the definitions of gentleman's agreement in the context of RPGs include the players agreeing not to break the game. That is, both sides (DM and players) agree to be gentlemen!

Except the player's version of the DM being a gentleman is working with less than 1/10 of his tools for increasingly inane reasons. It's the reason I put "Gentleman's Agreement" in quotes like this. Every time it's been cited in threads I read is little more than a tool to bully the DM into exactly one type of game. If it was actually about "being gentlemen" it wouldn't be used as a weapon AGAINST THE DAMN DM.

"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRainCrystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

The thing is that taking equipment away permanently is seen as a poor tactic, whereas taking equipment away temporarily is fair game.

Which gets into the whole "relatively similar replacement" concept. Putting aside how D&D puts equipment in a very different spot than in most games, and how the removal of equipment tends to be significantly more serious in D&D than in most games, there is a drastic difference between having something go missing only to have something similar replace it in the near future, and losing something irretrievable. There's also the matter of game expectations - this is where the D&D equipment paradigm gets relevant, as equipment loss is generally acceptable in other games, because it is expected that it happens, and most things are not really all that hard to replace with something similar, whereas D&D has lots of expensive things which involve several sessions of build up to acquire, and equipment that is practically a part of a character. There are other approaches - to use a personal example, a future-fantasy game of mine features a bunch of gonzo treasure hunters going around South America in a jeep. By "a jeep" I mean, "on average 1.5 jeeps per session", on account of how the jeeps keep getting blown up, or fall into ravines, or get buried in avalanches, or whatever else. Nobody considers this bad GMing, on account of how it is pretty much expected at this point and has crossed over into being completely hilarious. There is also no reason that D&D couldn't be somewhat closer to this side of things, where one might, for instance, need to get a new shield fairly frequently on account of how it keeps breaking with the specifics of the shields varying.

With all of that said - the solution to the original problem of somewhat too good equipment is not contrived removal. It's talking to the player, and agreeing to tone down the effect of the equipment for future sessions.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

The thing is that taking equipment away permanently is seen as a poor tactic, whereas taking equipment away temporarily is fair game.

I would call it bad form to take away anything the PCs are utterly dependent upon to function as characters, even temporarily. A Wizard's spellbook is a great example of something that should be immune to this, unless you intend to return it before the next time they prepare spells.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

The difference is though, you can take the sword away if it's causing trouble without inconveniencing the character for too terribly long. The spell by contrast cannot be so easily removed.

All this discussion of whether or not GMs should take PCs gear away and what the Gentleman's Agreement is or is not is missing an important point.

How does requiring a roll to learn a spell fix the problem?
If the wizard passes the roll then he's learned the problem spell and can't unlearn it any more that he could have without the problem spell.

If a tree falls in the forest and the PCs aren't around to hear it... what do I roll to see how loud it is?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)

I would call it bad form to take away anything the PCs are utterly dependent upon to function as characters, even temporarily. A Wizard's spellbook is a great example of something that should be immune to this, unless you intend to return it before the next time they prepare spells.

The thing is that in both 4E and 5E, wizards aren't utterly dependent on their spellbook (they'll automatically prepare the same spells as yesterday if they don't have their book).

Of course, if your system relies on the Christmas Tree Effect then removing anything becomes problematic, if only for the amount of bookkeeping involved.

"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRainCrystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

While this is true, that doesn't really affect the underlying point, only the applicability of the example to these particular systems.

I think it does: good game design is to ensure that characters aren't utterly reliant on their equipment; not to decry any and all DMs that use equipment loss as a plot device.

Think about it: in fiction, are there a lot of characters in fiction that require their Axe Of Coolness, Armor Of Toughitude, Boots Of Running Really Fast, Belt Of Whatever, and Helmet Of The Helmet Lords to function normally? Or are there more characters that rely on nothing but their wits and whatever lies nearby; or on one key artifact; or on a few gizmos that are one-shot items? If you separate James Bond from his trusty gun, or Lancelot from his blade, do you think he'll go sit in the corner and cry?

"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRainCrystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

I think it does: good game design is to ensure that characters aren't utterly reliant on their equipment; not to decry any and all DMs that use equipment loss as a plot device.

Think about it: in fiction, are there a lot of characters in fiction that require their Axe Of Coolness, Armor Of Toughitude, Boots Of Running Really Fast, Belt Of Whatever, and Helmet Of The Helmet Lords to function normally? Or are there more characters that rely on nothing but their wits and whatever lies nearby; or on one key artifact; or on a few gizmos that are one-shot items? If you separate James Bond from his trusty gun, or Lancelot from his blade, do you think he'll go sit in the corner and cry?

I dislike the reliance on equipment that's developed in D&D. Looking at Tolkien, you see some generic equipment, maybe a few masterwork weapons here and there, and then a couple of legendary artifacts that are mostly like children's toys next to the standard equipment of a 3.X adventurer. Think of MacGyver, using a Swiss Army knife, a paperclip, and whatever else is around. The Doctor, just using whatever is around (or in other incarnations, the sonic screwdriver). (I haven't had enough high fantasy lately, I guess.)

Last edited by noparlpf; 2012-10-07 at 10:16 AM.

Jude P.

Playing Pokémon X and αS
3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

I think it does: good game design is to ensure that characters aren't utterly reliant on their equipment; not to decry any and all DMs that use equipment loss as a plot device.

I'd agree with this - however, given the presence of item dependance as a systemic flaw, extra care must be taken regarding how items are handled, and that underlying point remains true even if, strictly speaking, the exact example is imperfect. That said, as regards system design, if one can just avoid this problem in the first place then the whole kludge of paying extremely close attention to the removal of items and giving extreme care when removing them can just go away.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

I think it does: good game design is to ensure that characters aren't utterly reliant on their equipment; not to decry any and all DMs that use equipment loss as a plot device.

That depends on what you are going for. In different game systems equiptment is of different importance. In shadowrun, for example, I'll buy lots of disposable equiptment, and if a gun gets too hot, I'll toss it. In Dungeons and Dragons, however, that +2 keen longsword or +3 dancing shield are important parts of my character(this is more true with 3e and 4e than other editions, but magic equiptment has always been an important part of D&D).

In one game, your equipment are just tools, something you use to get the job done, and they can be replaced. In the other game equiptment can't just be replaced. Even in a high magic setting the party can't just buy a new dancing shield every time one of theirs gets stolen or broken, money is a limited resource and that's not the kind of thing you can find on most store shelves.

In D&D, taking away equiptment from the player for an extended length of time is almost always a bad idea, especially if it is equiptment the character bought or crafted(as opposed to found). Magical items make a character more powerful, and many characters effectiveness is based around the gear they had. Taking away the gear makes the character weaker, and fosters bad blood between the player and the DM. I do think the best way to deal with an overpowered piece of equiptment(or a spell), is to explain the problem to the players, and give them something in return. If they are a good player, and it's not something you pull too often, there shouldn't be a problem.

I don't know why Zeful went off on some wild tangent about "Gentleman's Agreements". A D&D game is not the DM telling a story and the players acting in it, a D&D game is a group storytelling game where the PC's are the main characters. While it is true that the DM is the final arbitrator of the rules, they are not some kind of game god. Everyone, DM and player, should have a roll in the construction of the campaign and story, and a DM should never use their magical rule 0 power to put the players into line.

"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by TheOOB

I don't know why Zeful went off on some wild tangent about "Gentleman's Agreements". A D&D game is not the DM telling a story and the players acting in it, a D&D game is a group storytelling game where the PC's are the main characters. While it is true that the DM is the final arbitrator of the rules, they are not some kind of game god. Everyone, DM and player, should have a roll in the construction of the campaign and story, and a DM should never use their magical rule 0 power to put the players into line.

Here's why: Your point that I took umbrage with (this one) essentially made the distinction between good DMs and bad DMs so harsh and unforgiving that anyone trying DMing out for the first time is automatically a bad DM and the value judgement placed in that comment made it out that there was no point in playing with a bad DM, and thus no point in playing with a "new DM" either (hence the comment about a catch-22).

Essentially, your comment came across as "If you aren't already a incredible DM stop trying," which is not only reprehensible on the face of it. It's also supported by a social contract that should, on the face of it, be really easy to uphold, but has been so perverted by the mindset your comment espoused that rather than being a simple axiom is instead of a laundry list of things that are "sacrosanct" for literally no good reason.

Taking away a player's weapon is not a sign of bad DMing just like introducing something at the eleventh hour in a book isn't automatically a sign of bad writing, it's just something very easy to screw up. It has become a sign of "bad DMing" partly out of DMs screwing it up, but mostly out of the pervasiveness of high-end optimization requiring things that outright break game balance so severely that the only options are to invalidate it, or take it away from the players, and the general entitlement of the players that goes along with that.

I wasn't even going to suggest that a DM's role is somehow narratively more important than the players, like you seem to think. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to point out that your attitude and mindset aren't actually helping the community, like at all.

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Zeful

Here's why: Your point that I took umbrage with (this one) essentially made the distinction between good DMs and bad DMs so harsh and unforgiving that anyone trying DMing out for the first time is automatically a bad DM and the value judgement placed in that comment made it out that there was no point in playing with a bad DM, and thus no point in playing with a "new DM" either (hence the comment about a catch-22).

First, I would contend that many new DM's are bad DM's, very few people are good at any task when they first start out. As the great as wise Jake the Dog once said "Sucking at something is just the first step to being kind of good at something".

You are also extracting far more meaning from my statement that was said or implied. You are saying that I said all new DM's are bad DM's(which you said not me), and then you said that D&D is not worth playing with a bad DM(ignoring that bad is not a binary quality, even so it's a false statement).

Essentially, your comment came across as "If you aren't already a incredible DM stop trying," which is not only reprehensible on the face of it. It's also supported by a social contract that should, on the face of it, be really easy to uphold, but has been so perverted by the mindset your comment espoused that rather than being a simple axiom is instead of a laundry list of things that are "sacrosanct" for literally no good reason.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said that bad DM's tend to be the ones to take away equipment, and taking away equipment tends to lead to player resentment, which is all I said, period. You're trying to make me look like some kind of D&D snob, which is completely untrue, I simply believe that taking away equipment from players, especially for game balance reasons, is a really bad idea and shouldn't be done, and I expressed my educated opinion here. You're taking take sentences with no hidden meaning expressed or implied and trying to make me look bad and say I hate new DMs, which isn't even a topic I touched upon, and I don't appreciate it.

Taking away a player's weapon is not a sign of bad DMing just like introducing something at the eleventh hour in a book isn't automatically a sign of bad writing, it's just something very easy to screw up. It has become a sign of "bad DMing" partly out of DMs screwing it up, but mostly out of the pervasiveness of high-end optimization requiring things that outright break game balance so severely that the only options are to invalidate it, or take it away from the players, and the general entitlement of the players that goes along with that.

Key note, we were talking about taking something away from a player for balance reasons(try to remember the context in which my post was made), and I will stand by that taking equipment away from a player to balance the game is almost always a bad idea. There are plenty of good plot reasons to steal equipment(though I think that doing so for anything more than a session or two is usually a bad idea), but that is a different issue entirely, which deserves a thread of it's own, and doesn't have much place in a discussion about D&D 5th, specifically the topic of how players gain resources and power.

And besides, if a DM screws up game balance, they made a mistake, and is it a bad thing for them to admit to their mistake? Most good players will understand, if I have a player who doesn't understand that sometimes I make mistakes, and is willing to make adjustments, I don't want to play with that player(and I've had that exact problem before, I allowed some spells and feats I shouldn't have, he made a big fuss when I mentioned he was overpowering the party, and now he's not in our group, and we're having fun without him).

"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Originally Posted by Zeful

Here's why: Your point that I took umbrage with (this one) essentially made the distinction between good DMs and bad DMs so harsh and unforgiving that anyone trying DMing out for the first time is automatically a bad DM and the value judgement placed in that comment made it out that there was no point in playing with a bad DM, and thus no point in playing with a "new DM" either (hence the comment about a catch-22).

So, if I understand your argument, considering something a mark of bad DMing indicates that all those who do it are bad DMs, and should be avoided? I don't think that really follows; it's possible to be a kinda lousy DM without being horrendous enough to avoid, and it's possible to do some things that are generally bad DMing without actually being a bad DM.

On the other hand, some things really aren't very helpful for new DMs, or nearly anyone, to try: they will almost always turn out poorly, as you yourself admit. In what way then is warning new DMs off from them unhelpful, whether with the tag "bad DMing practice" or something else?

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Hey look, there's an update to the playtest package, which most notably contains magical items now.

It is full of contradictions. The fluff text says that magic items are not an entitlement, but the rules say the average encounter should have 0-8 magical items in it (determined by a % roll). The fluff says that there is no market for magic items, but also that this nonexistent market is easier to find in big cities, and the rules give each item a gp value between 50 and 10,000. The fluff says that 'rare' items should be given to characters of level 5 and up, but they have a 4% chance of showing up for every average encounter, regardless of character level.

And yes, the rarity levels from 4E are back, ranging from 'common' to 'artifact' (which are unique, but have a 1% chance of showing up every hard encounter). There is no clear correlation between an item's rarity and its power level, and there little or no 'common' items in the book except for healing potions. WOTC says they'll rectify this later.

Magic items no longer auto-identify (like in 4E) but a variety of trial-and-error methods are suggested, plus the classic Identify spell. While there are still a few 'item slots' left, you can now wear as many necklaces as the DM allows. However, a few rare or very rare items only work if you "attune" them to you, and there's a strict limit to how many items you can attune (plus attuning costs time). Which is odd considering how unlikely you are to find enough for this limit to matter.

Then there's a long table for randomly deciding who created the item and for what purpose. And a bunch of sample items which are reminiscent of 3E's items, except that they don't get pluses. They're pretty much all +1, and you use them for the special abilities. 1E's mixing potions table is also back as an optional rule.

Well, I expect this to change substantially after feedback, because right now the rules are all over the place.

"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRainCrystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

Edit: Magic items are out.
They're claiming that magic-marts won't be a thing in Next and that magic items will be relatively rare. I certainly hope that's actually the case.

Looks like that's another area they are going with the 2E perspective. It's not bad IMO, though I mostly hope we have a decent crafting/enchanting system more than anything. Neither 2E nor 3.5 have given something decent.